Both wayland and X are bad: designed by incompetent idiots, riddled with bugs and design errors, and they both have massive vulnerabilities that allow non-root attackers to do nasty shit such as keylogging every use on the system.

I don't know about the Wayland protocol itself (except some stuff like logind dependency) but the fact that they didn't write wlroots but let some random anons do it is pretty pathetic. I mean, it's supposed to be a LOT smaller than X11, so make the library, at least.

It doesn't just work. It's slow as fuck and extremely inefficient. Wayland is a protocol.

It doesn't add any component. It just specifies how the program can talk directly to the window manager, so GNUfags can throw X into the paper bin because it's useless and does nothing anymore apart from giving the frame to the window manager.

AND FOR THE LAST TIME: X IS NOT NETWORK TRANSPARENT ANYMORE! SO YOU CAN SHUT UP ABOUT THAT.

The people working on Wayland are mostly people who formerly worked on shrinking Xbloat.

Loads of software will still have X dependencies, so while you might not be running X you will still need it installed. and so far there are no big ticket programs that actually require wayland so there is little to no incentive to change, unless they decide to form a cabal with the major DEs, and maybe a handful of graphical tool kits to make wayland a hard dependency, thus allowing them to shit their project right down everyone's throats, à la systemd.

The server is processing and the client is rendering. With VirtualGL you can let the server process OpenGL applications locally on it's graphics card and let the client display the results. With x2x you can share mouse and keyboard uncomplicated via multiple X servers. You can even do stuff like create x servers with virtual framebuffers (no graphics card needed) and share that session to other computers or run multiple X servers without even having a graphics card. X can do a lot of stuff and /tech/ would know if they weren't just a bunch of larpers parroting what they read on reddit.

X is absolute, unadulterated, pure fucking garbage, and I wholeheartedly welcome the advent of Wayland, or literally any other display server/protocol that comes along and takes X to the fucking gallows once and for all.

The model as a whole is extremely outdated, visibly inefficient, insecure, and it such a fucking mess of spaghetti code and extensions and life support that only a few people on the planet still understand how to actually maintain it. Their opinion on X? "Kill it with fire, please."

For a group of people that love to lambaste Windows users for having "babyduck syndrome", I've never seen more babyducks when it comes to the retards peddling the "x-xorg just werks" shit and spreading dumbfuck FUD about Wayland. (Of course, in all fairness, it doesn't help when all the distros out there wanted to be the first kids on the block to use Wayland and started pushing it out before it was 100% ready, leading to the average retarded joe to swear off of it.)

Similarly, for a group of people that jerk themselves off over software minimalism, there sure are a lot of people that love to suck the bloated dick of X. The same people who cry "Systemd does way too much for an init system!" seem to have no problem with all of the shit a display server shouldn't be doing, and they're too fucking retarded to understand that the Wayland protocol will eventually/has already gotten standardized extensions/addons for the sorts of shit they're bitching about (for instance, screensharing is now implemented under Pipewire, which on a side note, will kill another cancer, PA, eventually)

Simply put, and in simple user terms--X is responsible for a lot of the jankiness of the Linux desktop (as you'd expect of a display server that's been kept on life support for 30 years), and when Wayland is eventually adopted, it'll go a LONG way towards bringing Linux to the fucking 21st century.

>This is actually true! But it’s not as bad as it’s made out to be. Here’s why: X11 forwarding works on Wayland.

>Wait, what? Yep: all mainstream desktop Wayland compositors have support for Xwayland, which is an implementation of the X11 server which translates X11 to Wayland, for backwards compatibility. X11 forwarding works with it! So if you use X11 forwarding on Xorg today, your workflow will work on Wayland unchanged.

>However, Wayland itself is not network transparent. The reason for this is that some protocols rely on file descriptors for transferring information quickly or in bulk. One example is GPU buffers, so that the Wayland compositor can render clients without copying data on the GPU - which improves performance dramatically. However, little about Wayland is inherently network opaque. Things like sending pixel buffers to the compositor are already abstracted on Wayland and a network-backed implementation could be easily made. The problem is that no one seems to really care: all of the people who want network transparency drank the anti-Wayland kool-aid instead of showing up to put the work in. If you want to implement this, though, we’re here and ready to support you! Drop by the wlroots IRC channel and we’re prepared to help you implement this.

Their solution to wayland not supporting networking is hurr just use our X translator, which will work perfectly fine after we EEE X and force everything that wants to pop a GUI on linux to use wayland instead of X so X no longer works and the translator is useless.

Oh and if you want networking support which we did not include just write it yourself! Don't forget wayland is supposed to replace X except we didn't write all the stuff that it's supposed to replace, but use wayland anyway and write it yourself!

>Another thing I want to note is that Xorg still works. If you find your needs aren’t met by Wayland, just keep using X! We won’t be offended. I’m not trying to force you to use it. Why you heff to be mad?

We're just going to shill wayland everywhere and talk about how shit X is until redhat eventually forces it down everyone's throat like they did with systemd.

>Pluggable, composable, unopinionated modules for building a Wayland compositor; or about 50,000 lines of code you were going to write anyway.

How do you make anything minimalist when Wayland just removed 90% of Xorg and said "just implement it in your compositor, lol!!!1!1"? And if this library didn't exist? What about the fact that Wayland is just freedesktopware, meaning that it only cares about Linux (just go fuck yourselves, BSDs)?

And how do you manage to make that retarded strawman when you faggots aren't even talking about this, but only about the fact that their favourite WM doesn't exist as a compositor yet? I'd also like a good terminal emulator, not some VTE abomination or GPU accelerated bulshit.

>There is a very high likelihood that when a user complains about Wayland support for Nvidia they mean this

<As the actual person who receives these complaints... this isn't true. Once it's explained, though, the users still stick around and get angry because they made dumb, uninformed choices as a consumer and think it's our fault.

>If you're representing Wayland, this problem is your problem whether you want it or not.

<It's not. We can just choose not to solve it. Use X and buy smarter when the next harware upgrade comes around, or wait until your hardware is supported by nouveau if you don't want to upgrade any time soon.

We're just not going to solve any problems with half of linux desktops because wayland breaks support that X had. If nvidia doesn't fix our problems than users can just buy new graphics cards or write the software themselves.

>If anyone would like free hosting for a fosspay instance of their own, don't hesitate to reach out. It's not resource intensive for me to sustainably operate fosspay instances with no fees and I would be happy to help anyone who needs it.

Bullshit. There's a reason no one supports Nvidia's EGLStreams approach and that's because it's complete fucking garbage. Every Wayland compositor that's tried supporting it had a fucking terrible time and even in cases where they sort of got it working (like Gnome's compositor and Drew's own Sway) the results were so finicky they couldn't recommend using it.

Why won't Nvidia implement GBM? It's because their proprietary graphics driver is a niggerrigged clusterfuck and making it behave like a standard Linux graphics driver would take a complete rewrite. They're too lazy for this so instead of unfucking their own driver and implementing standard APIs, they instead make their own crappy API which hardly works and insist everyone else has to use it.

>Why would Nvidia bother implementing yet another Linux exclusive API when less than 5% of their customers are on Linux?

>Don't pretend GBM is standard by any reasonable meaning of the word.

It's more standard than EGLStreams and actually works despite its issues. It doesn't help that Nvidia is used to throwing their weight around on Windows and suffers from a terrible case of NIH syndrome.

Yes. Old graphics cards were literally just framebuffers the CPU pushed the screen contents to. "GUI acceleration" if available at all was limited to blitting and simple primitives like the drawing of lines. Modern graphics cards are basically computers for themselves, you cannot compare the complexity at all.